"So if you were given an opportunity to own the 1959 D cent pictured in this thread, would you want to own it?"
Yes, I would like to own it no matter if it is genuine or counterfeit.
Based on the photos posted here and never seeing the coin in hand, I don't like a few things about it and think it is a counterfeit. I would guess it was stuck from counterfeit dies and not mint worker created.
@mach1ne said:
What are the possible options here?
Struck from counterfeit dies
2 cents cut in half and squeezed together - rims are buffed back down
Altered 9 in the date
Mint worker created it
What is the likelihood of each?
I suspect #2, although I have never seen the coin in person, nor have I ever seen a picture of the edge.
If it is indeed a "sandwich" job, one test that would reveal that would be the pitch (resonant frequency) at which it rings when tapped on the edge.
I feel confident ruling out #2.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Realone said:
I find it personally funny that a note from the U.S. Mint would have any bearing in this day and age. Obviously they couldn't get any TPG to jump on board given its potential selling price, so they went to the Mint thinking that a note from our might Institution would trump (no pun intended) any lack of plastic. You can take a note signed by some guy at the Mint and a starbux's coffee and see what that can do for you when you got to sell in the future.
It sounds as if you might be making an incorrect assumption. The Coin World article reads, in part:
“The oddity was discovered in 1986 by Leon Baller, a retired police officer. When he sent the coin for authentication by the U.S. Treasury in 1987, he received a letter signed by Richard M. McDrew, special agent for the Department of the Treasury, stating, “Enclosed is your United States 1¢ coin, dated 1959-D, with wheat reverse. This coin was microscopically examined by our Forensic Services Division in Washington, D.C. and it is their opinion the coin is genuine.”
Note when the coin was sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
when I was a young collector, I had saw one of these , it belonged to a guy named Ed Santini, he was a postal supervisor worked at the downtown branch where my dad worked. He was also a member of our coin club back in the day. It looked legit, but again, I was no where near experienced with error coins. This was long before any of the big grading companies were in existence, except for where you used to send coins in to INS. I don't know what ever happened to him or the coin, He ran a little ball card and jewelry /coin shop , but was held up and robbed at gunpoint, closed up and moved out west in about 1983-4 .
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
when I was a young collector, I had saw one of these , it belonged to a guy named Ed Santini, he was a postal supervisor worked at the downtown branch where my dad worked. He was also a member of our coin club back in the day. It looked legit, but again, I was no where near experienced with error coins. This was long before any of the big grading companies were in existence, except for where you used to send coins in to INS. I don't know what ever happened to him or the coin, He ran a little ball card and jewelry /coin shop , but was held up and robbed at gunpoint, closed up and moved out west in about 1983-4 .
I've seen a LOT of these types of coins that were sandwich jobs. I'd imagine that's what your friend had. This one obviously is a much more clever fake or someone would have noticed it.
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
Dirt in the letters and numbers on a circulated coin is not unusual.
They are definitely NOT idiots. It may well be a fake coin, but it is not so obvious a fake. Coin authenticators have seen these as well as Treasury. While no one is willing to actually authenticate it, no one has been able to prove it is a counterfeit. So, I would bet a whole lot of money that it is not a simple altered date or sandwich job as those are easy.
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
Dirt in the letters and numbers on a circulated coin is not unusual.
They are definitely NOT idiots. It may well be a fake coin, but it is not so obvious a fake. Coin authenticators have seen these as well as Treasury. While no one is willing to actually authenticate it, no one has been able to prove it is a counterfeit. So, I would bet a whole lot of money that it is not a simple altered date or sandwich job as those are easy.
They are not idiots, nor are the experts who have viewed the coin in hand and posted about it in this thread. I don’t recall any of them questioning the numerals in the date.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
Dirt in the letters and numbers on a circulated coin is not unusual.
They are definitely NOT idiots. It may well be a fake coin, but it is not so obvious a fake. Coin authenticators have seen these as well as Treasury. While no one is willing to actually authenticate it, no one has been able to prove it is a counterfeit. So, I would bet a whole lot of money that it is not a simple altered date or sandwich job as those are easy.
@Rooster1 said:
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
Dirt in the letters and numbers on a circulated coin is not unusual.
They are definitely NOT idiots. It may well be a fake coin, but it is not so obvious a fake. Coin authenticators have seen these as well as Treasury. While no one is willing to actually authenticate it, no one has been able to prove it is a counterfeit. So, I would bet a whole lot of money that it is not a simple altered date or sandwich job as those are easy.
The write up on the coin states it at MS60+.
It may be a 60, but it did circulate. Just look at it. It Is one of the reasons Fred thinks it's fake.
@mach1ne said:
What are the possible options here?
Struck from counterfeit dies
2 cents cut in half and squeezed together - rims are buffed back down
Altered 9 in the date
Mint worker created it
What is the likelihood of each?
I suspect #2, although I have never seen the coin in person, nor have I ever seen a picture of the edge.
If it is indeed a "sandwich" job, one test that would reveal that would be the pitch (resonant frequency) at which it rings when tapped on the edge.
In my opinion, any skilled technician, such as yourself could spot a coin sandwich in less than a minute with fluorescent light and a stereo microscope. Even the guys at the auction house should spot a coin with a buffed edge.
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
All of the research and physical examinations should have been done long before the piece was accepted for sale.
@RogerB said:
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
@RogerB said:
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
Since all 4 TPGs said it's fake, we have 1/16 probability all TPGs would say it's fake if it's a 50/50 flip.
@RogerB said:
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
Since all 4 TPGs said it's fake, we have 1/16 probability all TPGs would say it's fake if it's a 50/50 flip.
What is your basis for that statement? The linked Coin World article said:
“Both Professional Coin Grading Service and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. have given a “No Decision” grade on the mule.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's not complicated if the parties examining the coin make complete physical measurements. Without those data all the TPGs and Treasury are just blowing smoke. Further, IF - IF - the physical data and accurate photos were NOT made, then any results are suspect and unsupportable by facts.
I am astounded that anyone in the coin authentication business would suggest that objective data and facts "make it complicated."
[In case some members are unclear, good authentication is based only on facts; accurate measurements of physical properties, comparison with valid specimens, etc. While the "look" or "feel" is an important subjective indicator, they alone do not prove or disprove anything.]
@RogerB said:
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
Since all 4 TPGs said it's fake, we have 1/16 probability all TPGs would say it's fake if it's a 50/50 flip.
What is your basis for that statement? The linked Coin World article said:
“Both Professional Coin Grading Service and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. have given a “No Decision” grade on the mule.”
His basis was just math. 1/2 odds four times is 1/16. I think it was a joke.
Actually, I happen to have the mule die myself!!! I bought this last weekend [currently on eBay] It's a paperweight made from a canceled cent die. Whoever put it together shows the obverse of a 1959 cent and a wheat reverse! LOL
That Die Set on the wood base was my deal
20 years ago when my Defaced Dies were
first sold.
The Dies are all from Denver, and are all dated
either 1993 or 1994, each with a unique serial #.
The company that sold them placed a 1993-D or
1994-D cent on the right side, and a unstuck
planchet on the left side.
Someone customized the two cents - interesting,
and goes along with this thread, but not 'as issued'.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
@jmlanzaf said:
Actually, I happen to have the mule die myself!!! I bought this last weekend [currently on eBay] It's a paperweight made from a canceled cent die. Whoever put it together shows the obverse of a 1959 cent and a wheat reverse! LOL
I think I have one of those. Got it off cable shopping channel years ago. Do you still have the glass dome?
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
@kbbpll said:
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
Does anyone know the history of the reverse dies in 1959? To wit: was the change known long enough in advance that they wouldn't have begun due prep with the old reverse? Could there have been dies made that were never supposed to be used? Would they have destroyed all the old reverse dies do none should have been lying around?
It's really not hard to imagine such a thing suggesting fron the Mint either accidentally or due to employee shenanigans. Even the appearance in circulation is possible if it were in the deal if the mint employee and his estate just thought it was a cent and spent it.
And why do the TPGS have no problem certifying an obvious shenanigan like the 58 DDO but not this mule from the same time period. Is there a problem with the dies? They can't seem to find evidence to declare it counterfeit but the most be something about the die variety that raises eyebrows.
@kbbpll said:
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
It is interesting that the die polish lines run in the same general direction, as might occur if the same press operator reached in with the same right or left hand to clean up a die, but the lines are different from one die to the other. Not the same die.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@RogerB said:
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
Since all 4 TPGs said it's fake, we have 1/16 probability all TPGs would say it's fake if it's a 50/50 flip.
NOPE! All it takes is one service to get "heads" and it will get slabbed as genuine.
To jmlanzaf's comments and questions -- meaningful research and physical examination by TPGs would resolve many of the issues discussed. Unfortunately, none of the TPGs - or anyone else - wants to pay for the background research. Maybe the answers, or parts of them, are among the NARA/Mint documents and files listed in prior posts - and maybe they aren't. Businesses don't want to pay for unknowns, and that is what a lot of coin research is faced with. To properly examine and research options on the subject coin would, in my estimation, cost about $10,000. What happens if no conclusion can be reached, or if the data are ambiguous, or if the data indicate the coin was impossible?
The major TPGs do their best with the limitations of their fee structure, guarantee, and optional resources. But most can probably make improvements with limited capital investment and a bit of careful training.
@RogerB said:
It's not complicated if the parties examining the coin make complete physical measurements. Without those data all the TPGs and Treasury are just blowing smoke. Further, IF - IF - the physical data and accurate photos were NOT made, then any results are suspect and unsupportable by facts.
I am astounded that anyone in the coin authentication business would suggest that objective data and facts "make it complicated."
[In case some members are unclear, good authentication is based only on facts; accurate measurements of physical properties, comparison with valid specimens, etc. While the "look" or "feel" is an important subjective indicator, they alone do not prove or disprove anything.]
Note to all readers. The above post illustrates how coins were authenticated over four decades ago. Coins were weighed to three decimal places (then to 4 when .001 proved to be insufficient), measured for diameter and thickness, and given a specific gravity test. By the late 1970's the improved, truly-deceptive, state-of-the-art fakes Passed all these "archaic" tests and were found to be closer to the published U.S. Mint Standards than the genuine examples!!!
@RogerB said:
To jmlanzaf's comments and questions -- meaningful research and physical examination by TPGs would resolve many of the issues discussed. Unfortunately, none of the TPGs - or anyone else - wants to pay for the background research. Maybe the answers, or parts of them, are among the NARA/Mint documents and files listed in prior posts - and maybe they aren't. Businesses don't want to pay for unknowns, and that is what a lot of coin research is faced with. To properly examine and research options on the subject coin would, in my estimation, cost about $10,000. What happens if no conclusion can be reached, or if the data are ambiguous, or if the data indicate the coin was impossible?
The major TPGs do their best with the limitations of their fee structure, guarantee, and optional resources. But most can probably make improvements with limited capital investment and a bit of careful training.
Write up a proposal? Maybe the owner will pay for it? After all, if it's real, it will be worth more than the current price, much more than the $10k for the research.
@kbbpll said:
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
It is interesting that the die polish lines run in the same general direction, as might occur if the same press operator reached in with the same right or left hand to clean up a die, but the lines are different from one die to the other. Not the same die.
TD
Yes, there are differences, but angle, lighting, and slight rotation of coin between images means that one line can be emphasized or disappear from one image to the next. I have highlighted a dozen areas where the lines appear to be identical. Particularly the obvious one from the upper inside left of the Y to Lincoln's hair, a short one going NE from the first 9 in the date, and the one going NE from the upper left corner of the E. I have trouble believing that so many identical features are shared, particularly with the assertion that the "mule" is an outright forgery. It's easier for me to think that it's a very good die transfer, or (shudder) "real".
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
@RogerB said:
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
You never know till you try. Maybe reach out to Goldbergs?
One interesting thing could be to create a website for a numismatic research service and a list of open research projects waiting for funding along with taking custom requests?
Maybe you can post your research, results and progress on YouTube and make some money off ads as well? There's lots of coin videos on YouTube now.
@kbbpll said:
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
Excellent work! The chances of finding the comparison obverse are one-in-a-million. So you are the faker? LOL.
In all seriousness, That coin and the mule should be seen TOGETHER at a major TPGS. It may help. Here is the problem:
As early as 1973, it was discovered on the "Omega" HR $20 that the transfer process used at that time to counterfeit that coin was able "pick up" fine die polish on the genuine specimen used to make the counterfeit die! From that day on, professional authenticators' began to record the even finer microscopic polish that was not being transferred. That was forty-plus years ago. No telling how much technology has improved since then but I'm sure it has.
BTW, now the Mint is making dies the "new" economical way for gold eagles way that any professional counterfeiter can reproduce!
@Insider2 said:
BTW, now the Mint is making dies the "new" economical way for gold eagles way that any professional counterfeiter can reproduce!
What way is that?
Very crude and granular compared to 1986 + issues. Unfortunately, I have not been inside the engraving department for at least fifteen years so I don't wish to post misinformation.
I remember JJ Ford Jr. “hired” me to
do some research on a very rare
medal he owned. I went to the
Archives that held the appropriate
records but failed to find what
he was seeking. The records in
question were not complete not
every piece of paper survives
150 years. When I told him this
he declined to pay me for my
time and effort. Not a dime.
Yes, I'm the faker.
For reference, the coin on the right is NGC 3627916-011 MS66RD, and is buried on Heritage in a 9 coin lot #24066 sold August 2012. I have run across a few others that appear to be from the same die but this one had the best image for comparison purposes. @Insider2 I agree that die transfer could have picked up these features.
@CaptainBlunt said:
I remember JJ Ford Jr. “hired” me to
do some research on a very rare
medal he owned. I went to the
Archives that held the appropriate
records but failed to find what
he was seeking. The records in
question were not complete not
every piece of paper survives
150 years. When I told him this
he declined to pay me for my
time and effort. Not a dime.
Mr. Ford was a character. I wish I had spent more than a combined total of 15 minutes with him over the years!
I'm going to implore all you 20-30 year old members (if there are any) to spend as much time and pick the brains of some of the older numismatists still around. ANA Summer Seminar may be one of the only places. Imagine being able to eat lunch with...
Heck, the ANA YN Auction should auction off a lunch or dinner with say JA (sorry to push you into this) at someplace in NJ. The winner would need to get to NJ or airfare and accommodations could be included. Think I'll mention this to the ANA right now.
@CaptainBlunt said:
I remember JJ Ford Jr. “hired” me to
do some research on a very rare
medal he owned. I went to the
Archives that held the appropriate
records but failed to find what
he was seeking. The records in
question were not complete not
every piece of paper survives
150 years. When I told him this
he declined to pay me for my
time and effort. Not a dime.
Ouch. This is an area where it would be nice to get partial payment up front.
@Mark said: @insider2 Given what I read about Ford in Karl Moulton's book, I would probably have used a different word than "character" to describe him.
Perhaps there is a little "crook?" in most of us. Knowledge is power. Some of us may be guilty of abusing that knowledge in varying degrees all the way up to unethical behavior or much worse. I happen to think that numismatics is better off because of its scoundrels. They are also the numismatists we remember and talk/write about. Without a John Ford, Mr. Moulton would not have a book.
The known history of this unique cent begins in 1986. A retired police officer named Leon Baller advertised in his local Walnut Creek, California newspaper that he would purchase rare and unusual coins. A local coin collector saw the ad and contacted Baller about an unusual 1959-D wheat reverse cent that he had found, and Baller soon arranged to meet with him and then purchased the coin for ****$1,500. ***
That has got to be the buy of the century for a coin that unique and to be sold for such a low amount. Bet the seller has sellers remorse for selling to cheap.
Comments
"So if you were given an opportunity to own the 1959 D cent pictured in this thread, would you want to own it?"
Yes, I would like to own it no matter if it is genuine or counterfeit.
Based on the photos posted here and never seeing the coin in hand, I don't like a few things about it and think it is a counterfeit. I would guess it was stuck from counterfeit dies and not mint worker created.
I feel confident ruling out #2.
I always thought the 59-D Wheatie was assembled with 2 halves by a jeweler in the 1960's.
Looking forward to what the reserve will be?
Yet honestly if about to flush a good chunk on something altered I'd rather have this Lincoln...
It sounds as if you might be making an incorrect assumption. The Coin World article reads, in part:
“The oddity was discovered in 1986 by Leon Baller, a retired police officer. When he sent the coin for authentication by the U.S. Treasury in 1987, he received a letter signed by Richard M. McDrew, special agent for the Department of the Treasury, stating, “Enclosed is your United States 1¢ coin, dated 1959-D, with wheat reverse. This coin was microscopically examined by our Forensic Services Division in Washington, D.C. and it is their opinion the coin is genuine.”
Note when the coin was sent to the U.S. Treasury.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Could this cent be a 1939 or 1949 D with the 3 or 4 ground down and replaced with a 5 ? Why is it the numbers and letters are dark around them with the rest of the coin looking like new?
Its a nice fantasy coin. I don't consider it to be authentic.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
Guys,
when I was a young collector, I had saw one of these , it belonged to a guy named Ed Santini, he was a postal supervisor worked at the downtown branch where my dad worked. He was also a member of our coin club back in the day. It looked legit, but again, I was no where near experienced with error coins. This was long before any of the big grading companies were in existence, except for where you used to send coins in to INS. I don't know what ever happened to him or the coin, He ran a little ball card and jewelry /coin shop , but was held up and robbed at gunpoint, closed up and moved out west in about 1983-4 .
Please. They aren't idiots doing this authentication, even at Treasury.
I've seen a LOT of these types of coins that were sandwich jobs. I'd imagine that's what your friend had. This one obviously is a much more clever fake or someone would have noticed it.
What is your explanation for the dark colors around the numbers and letters? And for all I know, they may be idiots.
Dirt in the letters and numbers on a circulated coin is not unusual.
They are definitely NOT idiots. It may well be a fake coin, but it is not so obvious a fake. Coin authenticators have seen these as well as Treasury. While no one is willing to actually authenticate it, no one has been able to prove it is a counterfeit. So, I would bet a whole lot of money that it is not a simple altered date or sandwich job as those are easy.
They are not idiots, nor are the experts who have viewed the coin in hand and posted about it in this thread. I don’t recall any of them questioning the numerals in the date.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The write up on the coin states it at MS60+.
It may be a 60, but it did circulate. Just look at it. It Is one of the reasons Fred thinks it's fake.
In my opinion, any skilled technician, such as yourself could spot a coin sandwich in less than a minute with fluorescent light and a stereo microscope. Even the guys at the auction house should spot a coin with a buffed edge.
Does the owner or auction company have a copy of the Treasury Forensic Services Division examination report? How about the TPG authentication reports? What physical facts have been determined that would permit comparison with a piece or group of pieces of known authenticity? Is there so much as an accurate color photo? (The auction photo looks like a pink Tarnex-dipped cent.)
All of the research and physical examinations should have been done long before the piece was accepted for sale.
You are making this very complicated Roger. It works like this, the coin is removed from its holder and weighed. Then it is examined at high power. Finally, it is flipped. Heads it's authentic or tails it is a fake.
Since all 4 TPGs said it's fake, we have 1/16 probability all TPGs would say it's fake if it's a 50/50 flip.
What is your basis for that statement? The linked Coin World article said:
“Both Professional Coin Grading Service and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. have given a “No Decision” grade on the mule.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's not complicated if the parties examining the coin make complete physical measurements. Without those data all the TPGs and Treasury are just blowing smoke. Further, IF - IF - the physical data and accurate photos were NOT made, then any results are suspect and unsupportable by facts.
I am astounded that anyone in the coin authentication business would suggest that objective data and facts "make it complicated."
[In case some members are unclear, good authentication is based only on facts; accurate measurements of physical properties, comparison with valid specimens, etc. While the "look" or "feel" is an important subjective indicator, they alone do not prove or disprove anything.]
What an interesting discussion. I've nothing to add but I enjoyed reading the speculation.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
His basis was just math. 1/2 odds four times is 1/16. I think it was a joke.
Actually, I happen to have the mule die myself!!! I bought this last weekend [currently on eBay] It's a paperweight made from a canceled cent die. Whoever put it together shows the obverse of a 1959 cent and a wheat reverse! LOL
That Die Set on the wood base was my deal
20 years ago when my Defaced Dies were
first sold.
The Dies are all from Denver, and are all dated
either 1993 or 1994, each with a unique serial #.
The company that sold them placed a 1993-D or
1994-D cent on the right side, and a unstuck
planchet on the left side.
Someone customized the two cents - interesting,
and goes along with this thread, but not 'as issued'.
I think I have one of those. Got it off cable shopping channel years ago. Do you still have the glass dome?
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
Does anyone know the history of the reverse dies in 1959? To wit: was the change known long enough in advance that they wouldn't have begun due prep with the old reverse? Could there have been dies made that were never supposed to be used? Would they have destroyed all the old reverse dies do none should have been lying around?
It's really not hard to imagine such a thing suggesting fron the Mint either accidentally or due to employee shenanigans. Even the appearance in circulation is possible if it were in the deal if the mint employee and his estate just thought it was a cent and spent it.
And why do the TPGS have no problem certifying an obvious shenanigan like the 58 DDO but not this mule from the same time period. Is there a problem with the dies? They can't seem to find evidence to declare it counterfeit but the most be something about the die variety that raises eyebrows.
It is interesting that the die polish lines run in the same general direction, as might occur if the same press operator reached in with the same right or left hand to clean up a die, but the lines are different from one die to the other. Not the same die.
TD
NOPE! All it takes is one service to get "heads" and it will get slabbed as genuine.
To jmlanzaf's comments and questions -- meaningful research and physical examination by TPGs would resolve many of the issues discussed. Unfortunately, none of the TPGs - or anyone else - wants to pay for the background research. Maybe the answers, or parts of them, are among the NARA/Mint documents and files listed in prior posts - and maybe they aren't. Businesses don't want to pay for unknowns, and that is what a lot of coin research is faced with. To properly examine and research options on the subject coin would, in my estimation, cost about $10,000. What happens if no conclusion can be reached, or if the data are ambiguous, or if the data indicate the coin was impossible?
The major TPGs do their best with the limitations of their fee structure, guarantee, and optional resources. But most can probably make improvements with limited capital investment and a bit of careful training.
Note to all readers. The above post illustrates how coins were authenticated over four decades ago. Coins were weighed to three decimal places (then to 4 when .001 proved to be insufficient), measured for diameter and thickness, and given a specific gravity test. By the late 1970's the improved, truly-deceptive, state-of-the-art fakes Passed all these "archaic" tests and were found to be closer to the published U.S. Mint Standards than the genuine examples!!!
Write up a proposal? Maybe the owner will pay for it? After all, if it's real, it will be worth more than the current price, much more than the $10k for the research.
Yes, there are differences, but angle, lighting, and slight rotation of coin between images means that one line can be emphasized or disappear from one image to the next. I have highlighted a dozen areas where the lines appear to be identical. Particularly the obvious one from the upper inside left of the Y to Lincoln's hair, a short one going NE from the first 9 in the date, and the one going NE from the upper left corner of the E. I have trouble believing that so many identical features are shared, particularly with the assertion that the "mule" is an outright forgery. It's easier for me to think that it's a very good die transfer, or (shudder) "real".
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
You never know till you try. Maybe reach out to Goldbergs?
One interesting thing could be to create a website for a numismatic research service and a list of open research projects waiting for funding along with taking custom requests?
Maybe you can post your research, results and progress on YouTube and make some money off ads as well? There's lots of coin videos on YouTube now.
Excellent work! The chances of finding the comparison obverse are one-in-a-million. So you are the faker? LOL.
In all seriousness, That coin and the mule should be seen TOGETHER at a major TPGS. It may help. Here is the problem:
As early as 1973, it was discovered on the "Omega" HR $20 that the transfer process used at that time to counterfeit that coin was able "pick up" fine die polish on the genuine specimen used to make the counterfeit die! From that day on, professional authenticators' began to record the even finer microscopic polish that was not being transferred. That was forty-plus years ago. No telling how much technology has improved since then but I'm sure it has.
BTW, now the Mint is making dies the "new" economical way for gold eagles way that any professional counterfeiter can reproduce!
What way is that?
FWIW, the motto IGWT on the mule is more clearly separated from the rim than the genuine coin.
I can't get past the crooked E in "we" but I guess its that way on genuine coins as well.
You'll see the same at the bottom of the bust. The entire rim seems thicker on the NGC coin
Very crude and granular compared to 1986 + issues. Unfortunately, I have not been inside the engraving department for at least fifteen years so I don't wish to post misinformation.
I remember JJ Ford Jr. “hired” me to
do some research on a very rare
medal he owned. I went to the
Archives that held the appropriate
records but failed to find what
he was seeking. The records in
question were not complete not
every piece of paper survives
150 years. When I told him this
he declined to pay me for my
time and effort. Not a dime.
Yes, I'm the faker.
For reference, the coin on the right is NGC 3627916-011 MS66RD, and is buried on Heritage in a 9 coin lot #24066 sold August 2012. I have run across a few others that appear to be from the same die but this one had the best image for comparison purposes. @Insider2 I agree that die transfer could have picked up these features.
Mr. Ford was a character. I wish I had spent more than a combined total of 15 minutes with him over the years!
I'm going to implore all you 20-30 year old members (if there are any) to spend as much time and pick the brains of some of the older numismatists still around. ANA Summer Seminar may be one of the only places. Imagine being able to eat lunch with...
Heck, the ANA YN Auction should auction off a lunch or dinner with say JA (sorry to push you into this) at someplace in NJ. The winner would need to get to NJ or airfare and accommodations could be included. Think I'll mention this to the ANA right now.
Ouch. This is an area where it would be nice to get partial payment up front.
@insider2 Given what I read about Ford in Karl Moulton's book, I would probably have used a different word than "character" to describe him.
Perhaps there is a little "crook?" in most of us. Knowledge is power. Some of us may be guilty of abusing that knowledge in varying degrees all the way up to unethical behavior or much worse. I happen to think that numismatics is better off because of its scoundrels. They are also the numismatists we remember and talk/write about. Without a John Ford, Mr. Moulton would not have a book.
The known history of this unique cent begins in 1986. A retired police officer named Leon Baller advertised in his local Walnut Creek, California newspaper that he would purchase rare and unusual coins. A local coin collector saw the ad and contacted Baller about an unusual 1959-D wheat reverse cent that he had found, and Baller soon arranged to meet with him and then purchased the coin for ****$1,500. ***
That has got to be the buy of the century for a coin that unique and to be sold for such a low amount. Bet the seller has sellers remorse for selling to cheap.
Is Leon still alive to confirm the purchase and what happend to the coin after he bought it? Is he still the owner?
According to the article linked below, he sold the coin to Heritage for an undisclosed amount.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/the-mystery-of-the-1959-d-mule-lincoln-cent